If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary -Some r****d
The main reason is oil prices collapsed. When your countries economy is dependent on oil that is what happens. They have heavy crude which isn't as profitable. They have a lot of other issues as well. There are plenty of socialist countries doing well. Having a corrupt politician is a bigger problem.
Love the hypocrisy. Lets burn russia to the ground for exposing corrupt DNC officials ... but if we interfere with another country, lets "hope our country would do a better job".
Corruption. An administration that creates policies for its own benefit. An administration that interferes with individual companies and industries. An administration that doesn't respect free press or fair elections. An administration that tries to convince the people that everyone but them is bad and lined up against them. What do you think is the reason?
Yeah, and Chavez was the one who turned their thriving capitalist country into a socialist sh*thole....he just got lucky and died before having to take the blame for the fallout. Capitalism built the wealth of Venezuela, Socialism squandered that wealth and created poverty and starvation....just like socialism does everywhere it's tried.
Yes, because your narrative is that it is failing because of socialist policies, and now that you named the policies we can discuss them. What are you talking about? Single payer works in numerous countries, like scandinavian countries, Canada, etc. You know what doesn't work? What we have here. Before you give me the "AMERICA HAS THE BEST HEALTHCARE!" For those that can pay for it. Half of healthcare is easy check ups and preventive measures... State Run industries also work in plenty of countries, I'm not sure what you're talking about there. @glynch just hit on that. Lack of property rights doesn't work, you're right there. If you applied this logic to America then Americans don't have the right to vote...since the government can strip you of that right if you are a felon... Again, their constitution gives them property rights, it's just that they are ruled by a wannabe dictator and the country is not strong enough to enforce or strengthen or clarify its own rules. Sure, I'm not sure that index is to say which countries are socialist or capitalist, China ranks in the 50s, and it is a very capitalist economy. My point is that Canada has a socialist policy and isn't Venezuela...that if you have socialist policies you'll become like Venezuela...when that isn't always the case.
Unchecked capitalism has caused plenty of deaths, plenty of starvation, because it contributes to class gap and comforts the rich to grow bigger and bigger while the poor struggle to get basic healthcare or food. It forces people to become wage slaves. It would make wage slaves of children and it eventually creates an oligarchy that then takes the government from the hands of the people. Just look at Russia. The more power you give to private business the more power it takes and it cares nothing about the human cost and destroys social mobility. These things always lead to the poor taking what they need...usually violently.
Yeah, that's the old socialist propaganda that was entirely proven wrong something like 60 years ago. Now, that said, literally no one is asking for "unchecked capitalism", those kinds of views are as extreme when it comes to the American political compass as your girl Ocasio-Cortez's socialist views.
45,000 people die from lack of health insurance alone in the country. Yeah, not proven wrong. Well, you all could have fooled me. When was the last time the GOP or you, in particular, were pro-regulation for ANYTHING?
LOL, that's some weak ass socialist propaganda, but you are comparing people dying of essentially natural causes to those starving to death under socialism.....you see the problem here right? To a socialist I imagine it probably would look like a sane system was "unfettered capitalism", but that's far from the truth.
...wat? No, just stating facts,not propaganda. When was the last time the GOP was pro-regulation for anything?
Well, perhaps it was just a happy coincidence that what you were saying was identical to really old socialist propaganda. Either way, comparing death from what are essentially natural causes to death from starvation is an interesting way to justify the most deadly ideology of the deadliest century in human history. Literally always. Even Ron Paul supported regulations existing. The discussion was always about the level of regulation.
Natural causes that can be prevented??? You do understand that's where the stat originates from, right? This is a study conducted at Harvard Medical by the way, not sure where the 'socialist propaganda' mess is coming from, maybe Harvard Medical School is a socialist training program? This is a study coming from doctors, but I'm sure Bobbythegreat knows more than them, whatever is convenient for you to toss it aside. Yes sure, as in "As little as possible, preferably close to 0 regulation." counts. Saying you support regulations existing is different than actually being for some kind of regulation. Ron Paul has been about as anti-regulation as possible too lol...funny that you'd name him as the guy on the right... Your regulation guy arguing against drug regulations and car safety regulation, funny, he's fine with it existing but he sure spoke a lot about ending all of it. I can't remember Ron Paul asking to regulate anything and saying "The market will regulate" is not regulation. That's just unchecked free market capitalism.
Sure, I get exactly what it is talking about.....and again, you are comparing that to ****ing starvation.....in nations that not only don't have any medicine, they don't have any ****ing food because of the dipshit economic system they went with. You do get that "preferably close to 0" is acknowledging that 0 regulation is impossible right? And that's by far the most libertarian Republican in decades....so yeah, once again what you post contradicts the narrative you were going with. I understand that to a socialist not having the government strictly regulate every aspect of life sounds radical.....but there's a reason you guys are all alone on the fringes.
Unchecked Capitalism also causes starvation. The only reason this country doesn't have starving children is because of the social programs we have lol. that is the ONLY reason...the social programs that the GOP tries to strangle to death whenever they get a chance to. In fact, we have an estimated 48 million starving people in this country, 16 million of them being kids. But hey, ignore the study from doctors as socialist propaganda. It makes you look sane. It isn't impossible, if we keep the GOP in power long enough they will make it very possible. No, I asked you when have the GOP or conservatives promoted regulations because you said "No one is for unchecked capitalism" and you gave me Ron Paul...a man who sat up there and argued that there shouldn't even be automobile regulations. Hey, if a car has a faulty seatbelt let the free market decide! Sally who lost her mother because of a faulty seatbelt in her Chevrolet will just go with Hyundai next time. Free Market, she learned her lesson though didn't she and Chevy lost a customer because of the free market regulation at play!
LOL wow. Okay, let's go one thing at a time. Unchecked capitalism could potentially cause starvation...but perhaps that's why literally no one advocates for it other than Anarchists and they don't count when it comes to political conversations. As to "the only reason this country doesn't have starving children", the real reason is because capitalism does such a good job of production that you end up with a ton of excess, not shortages. Funny enough, the accusation that capitalism would lead to starvation and poverty was some of the oldest socialist propaganda....and what we found was the exact opposite was true. Capitalism leads to excess and is the best system ever devised when it comes to bringing the world out of poverty and eliminating starvation. When you quote 48 million people in America "starving", you know that's not true right? There's a pretty big difference between people who are "food insecure" and those who are legit starving. This is proven by the fact that the number of people who starve to death in the US every year due to simply not being able to afford food is 0. There are some who starve to death, but that's usually instances of murder or of elderly who can't feed themselves because of physical problems. You know what the real problem America faces that no socialist country has ever struggled with? Obesity. It's a problem caused by excess, something that people starving due to socialism don't have to worry about. That's an incredibly stupid statement.....so you are basically saying that if the GOP stay in power, they'll do something they don't want to do. Something that literally none of them think is a good idea.....are you trying to get me to laugh at you? C'mon man. Even Ron Paul isn't for "unchecked capitalism" and he's by far the most libertarian "Republican" in many decades.....and you think that helps your case? LOL
